418 replies to this topic

[Lancashire Fusilier]

4thGordons, on 29 January 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Those are some exceptionally fine examples, and the MkI scabbard is great too.
Chris

Thank you, I am pleased you liked them.
You may particularly like the Seaforth Highlanders bayonet.
LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

sawdoc34, on 29 January 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Wow LF thats some seriously nice looking hookies you have there, many thanks for sharing those beauties    
Do you collect bayonets from different nations or just brit/commonwealth?
Cheers,
Aleck

I have a very large British WW1 bayonet Collection, and I also have a large German WW2 presentation bayonet Collection.
I am pleased you enjoyed the hooked bayonets.
LF

[sawdoc34]

What wasnt to enjoy LF, they are real beauties, love brit bayonets & looking forward to seeing more pics from your collection
Cheers,
Aleck

[Lancashire Fusilier]

4thGordons, on 29 January 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Those are some exceptionally fine examples, and the MkI scabbard is great too.
Chris

Chris,
I know your interest is Highland Regiments, so you may like a photograph of the Seaforth Highlander's hooked bayonet pommel showing the Seaforth Highlander's mark, being an early hooked bayonet to a Highland Regiment, I am particularly proud of this one.
LF.

Attached Files

•  seaforthpommel003.jpg   33.33K   0 downloads

[shippingsteel]

Good stuff LF, thanks for posting those pics of some very nice bayonets. Some nicely marked ones amongst them as well.   
Though just go steady on the number of photos posted all at once, we don't want any medical complications arising from any irregular heartbeats that these may incur ...

And you're dead right, I was very interested to see your Australian marked hookie, as I was just about going to post my next picture, which looks to be one of its 'stable mates'.!
Apparently from the same batch, made the same month at Enfield, marked with the Defence Department symbol on the pommel, but stayed in service with its quillon removed.
There is a lot to be learned from comparing two similar examples like this, as we can make more inferences on exactly when the markings were applied, but more on that later.

Cheers, S>S

 035.JPG   88.47K   0 downloads

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Shippingsteel,
That is indeed a coincidence, same maker, same month of issue, and both with the same Australian issue mark on the pommel. Small world.
Pleased you liked the bayonets.
LF.

[shippingsteel]

Lancashire Fusilier, on 30 January 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

That is indeed a coincidence, same maker, same month of issue, and both with the same Australian issue mark on the pommel. Small world.

Not surprising though really. The ones that were shipped to Australia before the war all seemed to come in batches from the various makers, so made the same time.
Usually the very early marked ones that I find are all dated with the same couple of months. Which makes sense as they would have been made and supplied to order.

Cheers, S>S

[auchonvillerssomme]

same maker, same month of issue, and both with the same Australian issue mark on the pommel. Small world

In any other collecting field that would set alarm bells ringing.

Mick

[shippingsteel]

auchonvillerssomme, on 30 January 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

In any other collecting field that would set alarm bells ringing.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree there Mick. If you read my above post again, and have a think about it, we are talking about batch consignments made to order.
These weren't made in country, they were ordered from abroad and sent out to Australia where they were then marked and put into service. Only one of them is a hookie.
The other has had its hook removed and still remained in service with the Australian Army right through till after WW2 when it was then retired. Thats about 40 years in.

From my limited research into the pre-war bayonets ordered from England the 1909 batch were made by Wilkinson and Sanderson between 8/09, 9/09 and 12/09.
We got some Chapmans in 1910 and then another batch made by Enfield between 6/11, 9/11 and 11/11. Then in 1912 Sanderson made a batch marked with 2/12.
These are all fairly rare old bayonets now, all quillons or ex-quillons from which this data was obtained so numbers are limited, but the pattern of delivery is proven.

Cheers, S>S

[Lancashire Fusilier]

shippingsteel, on 30 January 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

I think you're barking up the wrong tree there Mick. If you read my above post again, and have a think about it, we are talking about batch consignments made to order.
These weren't made in country, they were ordered from abroad and sent out to Australia where they were then marked and put into service. Only one of them is a hookie.
The other has had its hook removed and still remained in service with the Australian Army right through till after WW2 when it was then retired. Thats about 40 years in.

From my limited research into the pre-war bayonets ordered from England the 1909 batch were made by Wilkinson and Sanderson between 8/09, 9/09 and 12/09.
We got some Chapmans in 1910 and then another batch made by Enfield between 6/11, 9/11 and 11/11. Then in 1912 Sanderson made a batch marked with 2/12.
These are all fairly rare old bayonets now, all quillons or ex-quillons from which this data was obtained so numbers are limited, but the pattern of delivery is proven.

Cheers, S>S

Back then, these bayonets would have been shipped to Australia by a long sea voyage, and it would have made no business logic to ship them in small numbers. I am sure that the bayonet manufacturers would have shipped in large quantities that could have been their production for a complete month or more.
This is borne out by two completely authentic Australian issued bayonets having the same production months, in fact, if you think about it carefully it makes complete sense.
LF

[shippingsteel]

LF you have posted some very nice hooked quillon P1907's for our viewing pleasure, and I think they are deserving of a little more attention and commentary.
So I've gone back and taken a closer look at the markings and have a few comments on each, and if you don't mind I'd like to use them to answer a question.

It has always fascinated me as to why some of the quillon bayonets managed to survive intact while so many of their counterparts had their hooks removed.
It is well known that the LOC reference ordered that the quillons be removed in service, and over time this was eventually complied with by the unit armourers.

One thing that continually crops up with the surviving quillons is that unit markings generally indicate issue to a second line or reserve unit, which makes sense.
Examples that stayed at home were far more likely to survive intact, than say bayonets serving with the frontline units, what with losses and very active armourers.
I suspect also that the hook bayonets issued to the pre-war reservists also had a tendency to 'go missing' or be kept as souvenirs by any of the retiring soldiers.?

So looking back at these 4 examples we have the following markings :-
Enfield made 5/09 marked to the Seaforth Highlanders ( SEA. R.210) with the R = Reservists
Chapman made 5/10 marked to the Royal Irish ( 3RI 5379 ) the 3 = 3rd (Reserve) Battalion
Wilkinson made 7/10 marked to the Kings Shropshires ( 3SH 169 ) the 3 = 3rd (Reserve) Battalion, but also note a '14 reissue marked on the ricasso.?
Enfield made 9/11 with the Australian D^ symbol marked on the pommel, but absent any of the State ownership or Military District markings.

So even with this small group we can see that there is a very strong relationship between surviving hookies having been issued at some stage to reserve units.
However the '14 reissue mark is interesting as it suggests that example was most likely reissued again for 'active service' during the initial mobilisation period.

Cheers, S>S

[Lancashire Fusilier]

shippingsteel, on 30 January 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

LF you have posted some very nice hooked quillon P1907's for our viewing pleasure, and I think they are deserving of a little more attention and commentary.
So I've gone back and taken a closer look at the markings and have a few comments on each, and if you don't mind I'd like to use them to answer a question.

It has always fascinated me as to why some of the quillon bayonets managed to survive intact while so many of their counterparts had their hooks removed.
It is well known that the LOC reference ordered that the quillons be removed in service, and over time this was eventually complied with by the unit armourers.

One thing that continually crops up with the surviving quillons is that unit markings generally indicate issue to a second line or reserve unit, which makes sense.
Examples that stayed at home were far more likely to survive intact, than say bayonets serving with the frontline units, what with losses and very active armourers.
I suspect also that the hook bayonets issued to the pre-war reservists also had a tendency to 'go missing' or be kept as souvenirs by any of the retiring soldiers.?

So looking back at these 4 examples we have the following markings :-
Enfield made 5/09 marked to the Seaforth Highlanders ( SEA. R.210) with the R = Reservists
Chapman made 5/10 marked to the Royal Irish ( 3RI 5379 ) the 3 = 3rd (Reserve) Battalion
Wilkinson made 7/10 marked to the Kings Shropshires ( 3SH 169 ) the 3 = 3rd (Reserve) Battalion, but also note a '14 reissue marked on the ricasso.?
Enfield made 9/11 with the Australian D^ symbol marked on the pommel, but absent any of the State ownership or Military District markings.

So even with this small group we can see that there is a very strong relationship between surviving hookies having been issued at some stage to reserve units.
However the '14 reissue mark is interesting as it suggests that example was most likely reissued again for 'active service' during the initial mobilisation period.

Cheers, S>S

I wondered why a few hooked quillion bayonets survived the regulation removal of the hook, luckily, it seems a few soldiers kept them at home!
LF

[TRAJAN]

Ladeezz and Gen'elmen,

I offer for your delectation this little beauty, described in the literature as a 'historic[al]' 1913 dated bayonet! For only, and I repeat this, ONLY.... wait for it, TL 150 or 'roundabout 50 knickers mate'

Comments welcomed (apart from the obvious i.e: price and the lack of a certain bit)

Trajan

Attached Files

•  1913-TARIHLI-KASATURA__54562039_0.jpg   45.84K   0 downloads

[khaki]

Very extensive patina, wish I could see the scabbard.

khaki

[shippingsteel]

TRAJAN, on 21 March 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I offer for your delectation this little beauty, described in the literature as a 'historic[al]' 1913 dated bayonet!

Well it would be historical if it WAS dated 1913 ... and I'm sure its worth every penny.! Their challenge is simply to find the right buyer ...

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

shippingsteel, on 01 January 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

Aleck your new addition with the alloy grips looks to have also had a bit of "work". Appears to be a 1924 style long export pattern bayonet that has been regripped.
The M1924 was made and copied in a number of countries and then exported to a lot more, so exact identification is a little difficult, but the measurements match.

Originally fitted with timber grips, these look to have been replaced with some "custom alloys" from whatever source.! The grip screws are modern replacements.
The scabbard also looks to be a ring-in and I can't seem to place it yet. The frog loop may have been added later with all the extra brazing a possible giveaway.??

Your bayonet appears to have a makers mark stamped on the ricasso which I can't make out, but if you can read that I'm sure it would provide us with some clues.
PS. I'm going to take a stab ...   and say it was once a Yugoslavian made M1924 'long export' pattern bayonet that was supplied for the Persian Mauser contract.!  

Cheers, S>S

Going way back to around New Year, our mate Sawdoc34 posted up one of his new additions looking for an ID, it was a strange one but apparently an 'export' Mauser.
Well I was just 'trawling' on Ebay and found another of its stable mates HERE its an exact match and shows a clear stamping on the ricasso, definitely Yugo made in 1935.

This correlates nicely with the last order of Czech made VZ24 rifles supplied on the Persian contract, but apparently the bayonets were then obtained out of Yugoslavia.??
So anyway that appears to confirm the ID, and its interesting to see that there are more of the same still out there, and what about those grips - sure are unique in style.!!

Cheers, S>S

 ricasso.jpg   41.48K   0 downloads

[shippingsteel]

Here is another look at those grips - the originals should have had rivetted timber grips, but perhaps this is a latter day refurb job emanating from the NWFP (ie. Afghanistan).?

Cheers, S>S

 grips.jpg   96.25K   0 downloads

[sawdoc34]

Thanks for the research S/S, much appreciated, your conclusions make sense to me, could be several more of these surfacing by the looks of it

Here are a few more new additions from my latest work trips (got 2 days off, they are all heart), reckon the demag is probably a repro as cant see any imperial markings but looks the part anyway-





Cheers,
Aleck

[sawdoc34]

On the plus side, the turked ersatz was once WW1 german issue-

[sawdoc34]

Also anyone got any ideas on the letter/number markings on the pommel of this unmarked K98 bayo?
Cheers,
Aleck

[shippingsteel]

sawdoc34, on 30 March 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Also anyone got any ideas on the letter/number markings on the pommel of this unmarked K98 bayo?

Its probably an 'export' bayonet. That format of an early letter followed by a 4 digit serial is commonly found on bayonets exported to the South American countries.
Quite an assortment you have there.! You're never short of a challenge with the 'turks' - even just putting the correct label on them can be an arduous task in itself ...

Cheers, S>S

[Richie B]

sawdoc34, on 30 March 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Also anyone got any ideas on the letter/number markings on the pommel of this unmarked K98 bayo?
Cheers,
Aleck

This looks like a German made Portuguese Kar 98 bayonet made in the 1930/40s. The serial number matched that of the rifle.

The contract bayonets carried German military inspections stamps. I have highlighted the remains of the one on the pommel.

Attached Files

•  DSCN5430.jpg   63.43K   1 downloads

[TRAJAN]

sawdoc34, on 30 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

... Here are a few more new additions from my latest work trips (got 2 days off, they are all heart), reckon the demag is probably a repro as cant see any imperial markings but looks the part anyway...

Yes, there is a chance the DEMAG is a reproduction and internet gossip is that lots of these have been made - I only have photo's but the angle of the lower quillion is a bit more than published ones, but lack of imperial or fraktur marks means nowt with these ones....

Nice set of nice bayonets there, though! Drool, dribble, drool.... Doubt if I'll find anything to equal any of these tomorrow at the monthly bazaar!

Trajan

[sawdoc34]

Thanks for the info lads, looks like the collection has just crossed to another nation.

Just been to my mates & came back with a couple of free bayonets that he found.

Top 1 looks like a standard Austrian FGGY M1895 but the bottom 1 intrigues me, its obviously an Italian M1891 Carcano bayonet but with the muzzle ring removed & makers marks have been scrubbed. It also seems to be navy marked as it has what looks like an anchor & numbered 807 to the crossguard. Anyone got any ideas?

[sawdoc34]